Race for the NFC North Title

Recommended Posts

I've been reading the vikings message board the last few weeks, you would think the responses were more representative of a team that goes 0-16 every year. Lions and Browns fans know true misery, no one else has quite reached that.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Let's talk about the Lions defense. After 11 games here is where they rank:

PPG against: 15th

Yards/game against: 15th

Pass yards/game : 14th

Rush Yards/game 15th

I would say, across the board, the Lions have a middle of the pack defense. They don't do anything really well (late turnovers perhaps) but they are also not flailing their arms helplessly either. And really, the most important stat is the points you give up, and the Lions have been good for nearly 2 months not giving up huge point totals. I think the Rams 28 was the last time someone scored more than 20. The defense also seems to revel in late game heroics, Slay alone has 2 picks and a FF in the last two minutes of games.

The defense has played better recently.

But per game isn't a great way to look at things. I think a per drive basis is better. Isn't it true that the lions have had a low number of possessions per game?

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

But per game isn't a great way to look at things. I think a per drive basis is better. Isn't it true that the lions have had a low number of possessions per game?

I am not a huge fan of possession stats in the NFL. Part of the strategy in the NFL is to limit other teams possession, and you do that with long drives. More of a methodical approach to the play calling and game management, which Caldwell as shown to be pretty good at it. I prefer the raw data of per game stats. Fits the eye test.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I am not a huge fan of possession stats in the NFL. Part of the strategy in the NFL is to limit other teams possession, and you do that with long drives. More of a methodical approach to the play calling and game management, which Caldwell as shown to be pretty good at it. I prefer the raw data of per game stats. Fits the eye test.

The reason many, myself included, rely on per possession instead of per game is per game counts offense and special team contributions to the defense. I've wrote about this a bit here, but the offense (while has had it's share of flounders lately) has done a great job staying on the field and killing clock. I believe this is done on purpose, because per a drive, the defense is bad. Likewise, the defense has relied again on killing clock and not giving up big plays. They do this too, because per a drive, they are bad.

The logic is as follows: If you know that drive for drive, the other team is likely to marginally outscore you, the more drives both teams have, the wider that difference gets. Eventually it gets wide enough that squeezing out 1 extra possession can't cover the delta. For instance, lets say that an opponents possession against a defense tends to result in .5 more points per a drive than our offense against their defense. After 6 drives, that amounts to a field goal. After 12 drives, its two field goals. However, if we can hold them to 9 drives (which is around where teams average against us), and we can get 10 drives, we can sneak a "bonus" 3 or 7 points to win or tie the game. We wouldn't be able to do that if we each had 12 drives.

So, yes, the defense has been bad. However, they (lately) have been playing their role very very well. And I mean that as a compliment. If you know you are the weak link, your job isn't to win games for the team, your job is to do everything in your power to make sure the strong links can still carry you. They have done that recently in spades. However, that does not make them a good defense.

Thought so. Just checking. How many years of floundering would it take for you to kind of shake your head and say 'SOL'? SOL to me would mean missing the playoffs to GB the last game of the year, them firing the coach, letting Stafford walk and starting all over with the 2 most important pieces of the puzzle needing to be replaced.

I have no idea if that happens or not, but that is one SOL scenario in my mind.

Another would be to make the playoffs this year, lose the game, keep the same staff and then come back next year to win 6 games.

These are SOL situations.

Non SOL situations IMO:

Win a playoff game this year. Get better next year and win a COUPLE playoff games. After that is a toss up, but that is DEF not SOL. I think even making the playoffs 2 years in a row would be a step in the opposite direction of SOL.

I am pretty sure I know your stance on this issue. 'Lat year has NOTHING to do with this...and 10 years ago means nothing now' etc. Sometimes there are just bad organizations...when we say SOL it basically means that.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I am pretty sure I know your stance on this issue. 'Lat year has NOTHING to do with this...and 10 years ago means nothing now' etc. Sometimes there are just bad organizations...when we say SOL it basically means that.

The scenario you offered would simply serve to add to my internal misery, for a day, then I move on.

But I wanted to comment on the part quoted. I think when many people say SOL they are just trying to paint the Lions as a poor organization, which is fair. But then the SOL talk always seems to bleed into how people evaluate the future of the Lions, which is where the meaning becomes lost on me. For instance, many still paint the ownership as "same ole Fords," yet Martha has shown herself to be rather competent. No idea how Quinn will pan out, but at least it's a new direction, that pretty much everyone can agree, is worth a shot.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Thought so. Just checking. How many years of floundering would it take for you to kind of shake your head and say 'SOL'? SOL to me would mean missing the playoffs to GB the last game of the year, them firing the coach, letting Stafford walk and starting all over with the 2 most important pieces of the puzzle needing to be replaced.

I have no idea if that happens or not, but that is one SOL scenario in my mind.

Another would be to make the playoffs this year, lose the game, keep the same staff and then come back next year to win 6 games.

These are SOL situations.

Non SOL situations IMO:

Win a playoff game this year. Get better next year and win a COUPLE playoff games. After that is a toss up, but that is DEF not SOL. I think even making the playoffs 2 years in a row would be a step in the opposite direction of SOL.

I am pretty sure I know your stance on this issue. 'Lat year has NOTHING to do with this...and 10 years ago means nothing now' etc. Sometimes there are just bad organizations...when we say SOL it basically means that.

SOL is a pet peeve of mine and its lazy. It's used by people who want to say, "lol, I don't even need to watch anymore, they will never be good, its the lions". There a lot of reasons this team has been bad, and its not because there is some mystic curse about the team. I'm not about telling people how to watch (or even that they should or shouldn't watch) but the majority of people who tout the SOL card that I have met in my life tout it because they want everyone to know how they aren't a fan anymore, and they are better than me for it. It's weak.

SOL lions fans like to brag that they called a loss (you can see it even in our game threads). That jaded attitude is on them, not the team. If you are so jaded and sure they aren't worth your time, then just walk away. It's not on the lions if SOL fan let the lions be such a negative influence on their life, and it's on SOL fan if it brings them pleasure watching someone lose.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

The scenario you offered would simply serve to add to my internal misery, for a day, then I move on.

But I wanted to comment on the part quoted. I think when many people say SOL they are just trying to paint the Lions as a poor organization, which is fair. But then the SOL talk always seems to bleed into how people evaluate the future of the Lions, which is where the meaning becomes lost on me. For instance, many still paint the ownership as "same ole Fords," yet Martha has shown herself to be rather competent. No idea how Quinn will pan out, but at least it's a new direction, that pretty much everyone can agree, is worth a shot.

You look to history to try and predict the future. We do this in baseball with stats all the time. She has 'appeared' competent, but if the Lions fail to make the playoffs under this current regime it is SOL.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

SOL is a pet peeve of mine and its lazy. It's used by people who want to say, "lol, I don't even need to watch anymore, they will never be good, its the lions". There a lot of reasons this team has been bad, and its not because there is some mystic curse about the team. I'm not about telling people how to watch (or even that they should or shouldn't watch) but the majority of people who tout the SOL card that I have met in my life tout it because they want everyone to know how they aren't a fan anymore, and they are better than me for it. It's weak.

SOL lions fans like to brag that they called a loss (you can see it even in our game threads). That jaded attitude is on them, not the team. If you are so jaded and sure they aren't worth your time, then just walk away. It's not on the lions if SOL fan let the lions be such a negative influence on their life, and it's on SOL fan if it brings them pleasure watching someone lose.

You can say they are SOL and still be a fan. Sounds like you need better friends if they try to make you feel crappy about still liking the team when they say SOL.

This whole post is all backwards. I have 'walked away', but maybe in a different way others have. I used to be such a hard core fan that losses would affect me for days....seasons would bother me for months. I still watch, I still root, but when they lose a game I just brush it off and move on. Maybe that is different than walking away, but it feels like walking away to me because of how hard core I used to be.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

SOL is a pet peeve of mine and its lazy. It's used by people who want to say, "lol, I don't even need to watch anymore, they will never be good, its the lions". There a lot of reasons this team has been bad, and its not because there is some mystic curse about the team. I'm not about telling people how to watch (or even that they should or shouldn't watch) but the majority of people who tout the SOL card that I have met in my life tout it because they want everyone to know how they aren't a fan anymore, and they are better than me for it. It's weak.

SOL lions fans like to brag that they called a loss (you can see it even in our game threads). That jaded attitude is on them, not the team. If you are so jaded and sure they aren't worth your time, then just walk away. It's not on the lions if SOL fan let the lions be such a negative influence on their life, and it's on SOL fan if it brings them pleasure watching someone lose.

I like this.

Once the same SOL card comes out, it's hard to know how to move forward in the conversation. The orthogonality of the view point stems from a strong bias of expecting failure regardless of overall context. Then you have people like me, who has a demented optimism toward the Lions, only because I am not willing to wager future success on past outcome. Yes, I've been optimistic for the last 3 years, but in that time the lions have a winning record, while most painted them as a 5-6 win team each and every year, based on past outcome.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

You look to history to try and predict the future. We do this in baseball with stats all the time. She has 'appeared' competent, but if the Lions fail to make the playoffs under this current regime it is SOL.

This is lazy. Per your analogy: We definitely don't look at the Red Sox, and say, they have won 2 world series in the past 10 years, they are going to be good this year. We look at stats.

If you want to say the lions are going to be bad because their defensive DVOA is awful, their WRs lead the league in drops, etc, then go for it. That would be like looking at baseball and projecting forward. Saying they are going to be bad as a team because the lions were bad 5,10, and 15 years ago is lazy. Just lazy.

Just now, John_Brian_K said:

You can say they are SOL and still be a fan. Sounds like you need better friends if they try to make you feel crappy about still liking the team when they say SOL.

This whole post is all backwards. I have 'walked away', but maybe in a different way others have. I used to be such a hard core fan that losses would affect me for days....seasons would bother me for months. I still watch, I still root, but when they lose a game I just brush it off and move on. Maybe that is different than walking away, but it feels like walking away to me because of how hard core I used to be.

I didn't say they were my friends. If you got jaded because the lions suck, that's on you. Not them.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Once the same SOL card comes out, it's hard to know how to move forward in the conversation. The orthogonality of the view point stems from a strong bias of expecting failure regardless of overall context. Then you have people like me, who has a demented optimism toward the Lions, only because I am not willing to wager future success on past outcome. Yes, I've been optimistic for the last 3 years, but in that time the lions have a winning record, while most painted them as a 5-6 win team each and every year, based on past outcome.

I was optimistic since 1991. Every. Year.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I would say this is an over generalization. If you're picking lottery numbers, then past outcome has no effect on future outcomes, you gain no knowledge by knowing what happened in the past. Although, an extreme example, it immediately follows that sports can be thought of in the same way. Your prediction is based on instantaneous talent relative to the competition. To predict the results of the Lions outcome, based on past Lions outcomes is a fools task. Basically, you gain no knowledge ( or very little, because you can argue on a player by player case) in the evaluation of the Lions by taking into account how they have performed in past seasons.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I would say this is an over generalization. If you're picking lottery numbers, then past outcome has no effect on future outcomes, you gain no knowledge by knowing what happened in the past. Although, an extreme example, it immediately follows that sports can be thought of in the same way. Your prediction is based on instantaneous talent relative to the competition. To predict the results of the Lions outcome, based on past Lions outcomes is a fools task. Basically, you gain no knowledge ( or very little, because you can argue on a player by player case) in the evaluation of the Lions by taking into account how they have performed in past seasons.

If I were to predict the Lions record based on the low end of wins every year (because history told me to do so) and you picked on the high end of wins based on what the 'experts' tell you about our talent (or your own detailed online research never having actually seen these players live) I would bet my predictions would be closer to reality than yours. You would have outliers for sure...maybe even a couple years in a row, but after 20-30 years I would be the winner.

There is nothing wrong with being optimistic. I was optimistic for 25 years, still am, but if I had to put money on the Lions to win or lose a big game I would bet on them to lose, not because I WANT them to lose, but because that is what this team does more often than not.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

If I were to predict the Lions record based on the low end of wins every year (because history told me to do so) and you picked on the high end of wins based on what the 'experts' tell you about our talent (or your own detailed online research never having actually seen these players live) I would bet my predictions would be closer to reality than yours. You would have outliers for sure...maybe even a couple years in a row, but after 20-30 years I would be the winner.

There is nothing wrong with being optimistic. I was optimistic for 25 years, still am, but if I had to put money on the Lions to win or lose a big game I would bet on them to lose, not because I WANT them to lose, but because that is what this team does more often than not.

Eyeballing their records based on your method, this is likely false. apart from a period between 2001 and 2006, the lions are pretty volatile. Just an eyeball test, but I bet you would do better guessing 8 wins every season than by taking the previous years guess.

However, the good news is I don't have to guess. DVOA is actually a better predictor than previous season's record, and refining it makes it even better. I'm sure there are papers out there that refine DVOA based on schedule prediction too. Here is a good place to start though: http://www.footballperspective.com/projecting-team-wins-using-dvoa/

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Actually, it makes complete sense. The only way the Lions lose the division is if the Lions blow it.

I don't necessarily buy the SOL talk and that the Lions are bound to fail because of past failures but the bottom line is that only the Lions can prevent the Lions from winning the division this season. 2 games up with 5 games to go, the fate of the division is completely in their hands now.